The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRCC AGENDA PK 1992/06/22Resource Conservation Committee Agenda Item for Meeting of June 22, 1992 Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING: HISTORIC DISTRICT STUDY - HEARING ON ALTERNATIVES - PCM-88-08 - APPLICANT: CITY OF CHULA VISTA A. BACKGROUND: 1. The establishment of a Heritage Park or Heritage Row has been the subject of discussion and examination for the last several years, first in conjunction with the proposed relocation of "Our House" from 666 Third Avenue and later with regard to the relocation of "Greg Rogers House" from 699 "E" Street. In each case, the task was to find a suitable relocation site because of the impending demolition of the structure. Subsequent to this, then Mayor Cox discussed the need for continued City efforts to preserve its unique history and a report was prepared discussing the concepts of the Historic Park, Historic District and Historic Row in the area bounded by "I" Street to the north, "J" Street to the south, Second Avenue to the east and mid-block between Del Mar Avenue and Third Avenue to the west. In 1987, the Resource Conservation Commission, Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to endorse the concepts of either a Heritage Row or Heritage District. The Council Concurred with these recommendations and in January, 1990, the City Council approved an agreement for consultant services to complete a more detailed study. Patrick J. Crowley, AIA/AICP, was retained to complete the work, and in February, 1992 the Historic District Study was given to City Staff by the Consultant. In brief, the study discusses possible alternatives for historic districts/areas which could be established either under existing sections of the Municipal Code or under revisions thereto. 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator considered the report and determined that until such time as the city Council adopts an alternative requiring an amendment to the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance and determines to proceed with the implementation thereof, environmental review is not required. B. ALTERNATIVES: The Historic District Study dated February, 1992 lists five alternatives in chapter six as follows: Resource Conservation Commission Page 2 PCM-88-08 - Historic District Study Agenda Item for Meeting of June 22, 1992 1. Chula Vista Historic Row; Chula Vista Historic District; No Formal Public Participation; 4. Historic Overlay Zone; and 5. Creation of a Historic Site Commission. These are described in detail in the study. C. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Resource Conservation Commission adopt a motion recommending that the City Council accept the Historic District Study dated February, 1992, and direct staff to implement its recommendations as follows: 1. Per Chapter 7, the study recommends that a Historic Modifying District Ordinance be drafted, adopted and incorporated into Title 19 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance). The ordinance would include elements describing its purpose, method of application clear criteria for its application, land use regulations for the properties within the district, possible expansion of permitted uses, description of the appeal process, and necessary definitions. The ordinance could be applied to any area in the City. In addition, the study recommends the appointment of a Historic District Task Force with representation from the Council, the Planning Commission, the Resource Conservation Commission, the Design Review Committee, the Historical Society, the Chamber of Commerce and other interested citizens. The Task Force would, among other assignments, assist the City in the implementation of the Historic Modifying District Ordinance. The appointment of such a Task Force would require changes to the duties of the Resource Conservation Commission which now has the responsibilities for review of historic preservation projects per the Municipal Code. 3. After the creation of the Historic Modifying District Ordinance and the establishment of the Historic District Task Force, schedule hearings for applying same to the target area. Resource Conservation Commission Page 3 PCM-88-O8 - Historic District Study Aaenda Item for Meeting of June 22, 1992 D. ANALYSIS: As time passes, there will be greater pressure to replace older structures with more efficient, cost-effective buildings. In many cases demolition and replacement is appropriate as the structures are old, worn or may pose a health or safety hazard. In other cases, because of the historic significance of the structure or site, demolition may be inappropriate and once the structure is razed or the site altered, the historic value is lost and the social fabric diminished because of the loss. Given the right circumstances, the structure's or site's preservation and rehabilitation may be easily undertaken. However, without suitable legislation, this is very difficult. The recommended action would create legislation that is flexible because it can be applied to any zoning district and to most situations where historic preservation is desirable, yet it is also enforceable because it will become a part of the zoning Ordinance. The Historic Designator could then be applied to any structure that qualifies, or there could be incentives to move the structure to an area where the Historic Designator has already been applied. Attachment "A" lists forty-two structures that are considered historically significant. Of these, four are protected through the Resource Conservation Commission and can not be architecturally changed or demolished without RCC approval. The remaining houses do not enjoy protection from arbitrary alteration, change or demolition. Those sites which enjoy some protection do so under Title 2 of the Municipal Code, however, this protection is not to the same extent as the proposed Historic Modifying District. [NOTE: On Page 2-6 of the Study it is mentioned that there are forty-four structures listed as being historically significant. There are actually forty-two, since "Our House" at 666 Third Avenue burned down and the Marry Miller House was counted twice.] r 'H` r u 1~ C-O 6 W I J ~ $T LET ~ 2 p -- SNaSTn STREET r > J J 5Na5TA - \ V ~ Z ~\ O IKA ST. = V r F wn,r,Y { W N Nn rl W ~~ ~ _ ~-r OJU' ~ 2 r r arr. -r-, R-3-~ ; i T'T ^ •1 I l r I I I _ .~~.~. "I' Street ~ I I I I I I I I I __ F I~ I I I I _ ~~ -•=~t_ _~ _~11 `~ ~ _,_ ~ _ _X W - ~ ~ ? Park/Row Concept I r. _ _ir ' y Area ! YI1SC n[P ___ ~ q „~, r GL V Pl a ___ Q ___ -~. ~_ .`J®' ®ri• _ f IRE 1 O r , N ~ X~ ~ •~ I I'. n _ ____ ___ I ~____ ~ ___ _ •_ ~ F" X ~-~ X _;_.~. I District Concopt 1 W ~ X I __ J~SOe -- = X,_~J X_ __ r G C ~ Area I , _ III ,• .,. "'V T d~:'~ b l a G~ ',II~~ •--- ~ _ _ W _.1 7 __ _ -. q _ _ ._ .._ m . _.. _ __ W J _ ~ ~ _ ~ J - ~ - W .- 7 G . Q C -~ ~ O , u .- .. m VI Mll l4N 5TR T - ~-mn rn~- ~F Z11r`4 W J d ®_...Locally designated historical. sites..._._..___........ x Potentially significant heritage houses inventoried. HERITAGE PARK/ROW AND DISTRICT CONCEPT AREAS- FIGURE ~ 1.3 PCM-88-08 north